4.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1979 respectively and live in Motala, Sweden. At the date of the facts in the present application, they were living in Romania.
5.  The first applicant was granted refugee status by the Romanian authorities in 1998, along with his father and brothers. In 2000 he married the second applicant. Their daughter was born in 2001 and acquired Romanian nationality at birth. At the date of the facts, the applicant was legally residing and working in Romania.
6.  In March 2003 the applicants and their daughter visited family in Egypt.
7.  Meanwhile, on 25 March 2003, at the request of the Romanian Intelligence Service (Serviciul român de informaţii) and in accordance with Government Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002 on the rules governing aliens in Romania (“Ordinance no. 194”), the prosecutor at the Bucharest Court of Appeal issued an order in which the first applicant was declared an “undesirable person” and banned from Romania for ten years on the ground that there was “sufficient and serious intelligence” that he was “engaged in activities capable of endangering national security”.
8.  Based on that order, on 28 March 2003 the prosecutor decided to take the applicant into public custody in the Otopeni Centre for the Reception, Selection and Accommodation of Foreigners (“the Otopeni Centre”), until his deportation was possible. The decision was taken for an initial period of thirty days, until 26 April 2003.
9.  On 6 April 2003, in the morning, when the applicants and their daughter returned to Romania, the first applicant was served with the order of 25 March 2003 and the decision of 28 March 2003 and prohibited from leaving the airport and entering Romania. He was informed of the reasons for that interdiction and asked to leave the territory immediately.
10.  At 1 p.m., after a brief meeting with his wife, the first applicant bought a ticket for Zurich and boarded a flight to that destination. As entry into Switzerland was denied, on 7 April he returned to Romania, where he was kept in the airport’s transit zone.
According to the applicant’s statements he was placed in the airport’s basement, in a room without heating, with only a thin cover to protect him from the cold. There was no bathroom. He had access to a toilet but had to be escorted there. Food was scarce and of poor quality. His wife was not allowed to see him or to send him clothes and food.
11.  On 8 April he was visited by a representative of the Romanian Council for Refugees (Consiliul Român pentru Refugiaţi). On that occasion, he did not complain about his detention. On the same day he was seen by a doctor who reported that he was in good general health.
12.  On the same day, through the offices of his lawyers, the applicant challenged the prosecutor’s order of 25 March 2003 before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. He argued that he had not done anything that would harm national security and that the order had disrupted his family life.
13.  On 8 April at 9.45 a.m. the authorities tried to repatriate the applicant to Egypt, which also refused him access to the territory and returned him to Romania on 9 April.
The authorities kept him in the transit area while they attempted to get him a visa for Egypt.
14.  On 11 April 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal stayed the execution of the prosecutor’s order of 25 March 2003, pending the outcome of the proceedings for its annulment. The decision to take the applicant into public custody remained operative.
15.  On 14 April 2003 the applicant was transferred to the Otopeni Centre where he claimed he was held in similar conditions to those in the airport. He stated that he had been allowed contact with his wife, who had brought him food and clothes. Upon transfer he had received an information note in English explaining the reasons he was being taken into public custody in the Centre, namely, that his request for refugee status had been denied, that an order for expulsion had been issued against him and that he had been declared “undesirable” on Romanian territory. He was also informed that the custodial measure would remain in place until travel documents were obtained and the return formalities completed.
16.  The applicant contested his taking into public custody before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. He also complained that the conditions in the transit zone were inadequate for a long period of detention. On 21 April 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal annulled the decision of 28 March. The Authority for Foreigners (Autoritatea pentru străini) appealed. The parties failed to provide any information on the subsequent proceedings.
On 24 April 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s public custody by three months. It noted that the decision of 21 April 2003 was not final and thus could not be taken into account, and considered that the reasons that justified the initial measure still existed. Furthermore, as long as the proceedings against the prosecutor’s order were pending the measure was still needed and the applicant could not be removed from the territory. It also dismissed the applicant’s arguments based on the infringement of his right to family life, as it considered that taking him into public custody did not breach Article 8 of the Convention.
17.  In a decision of 4 June 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor’s order of 25 March 2003, on the grounds that the measure had been taken in conformity with Ordinance no. 194 and that the applicant had not proved the contrary. It also rejected the applicant’s argument based on the right to family life, as it considered that the fact that he was married did not exonerate him from complying with the law and that the order did not interfere with his family life.
The decision was final.
18.  On 3 June 2003 the applicants, who had found out through their own means about the possibility of being granted entry to Sweden, left for Sweden with their daughter, where they currently reside. The first applicant’s father and brothers and the second applicant’s family are still living in Romania.